DOOM: The World

[vetran]

No, poor people aspire to having a full belly. Only once it's full do they aspire to other things.


An argument which has been made for decades, if not centuries. Of course that "small minority" of today's population is considerably larger than the entire world population back then.

The majority of the world does not need a private car - in fact I think this will be something that we see change in places like the UK in our lifetime - and in many places, heated homes are not the norm even for the wealthy.
I am not in favour of "let's see how many people we can fit" as I already said. I think there's too many already for some of the reasons you point out - mining, production, etc but we could technically have more people and most of them live in reasonable comfort, at the expense of the rest of us not living so lavishly. I'm also not sure what 10bn people are supposed to do. Do we need to find jobs for them all or revolutionise the entire concept of work to live as automation gains ground?

Sounds rough to me. The Jeremy Clarkson 'baby monitor' argument.

Indeed and a full belly for everyone is coming soon.

[d000hg]

Food is one thing but billions of poor people probably aspire to having more than just a full belly. In fact, the good life we've enjoyed for decades. Cars, heated homes, travel etc etc. Even if that can be achieved with zero carbon, think of all the raw materials that would be consumed.

No, poor people aspire to having a full belly. Only once it's full do they aspire to other things.

Unfortunately, all the trappings of modern life are only sustainable when they're only available to a small minority.

An argument which has been made for decades, if not centuries. Of course that "small minority" of today's population is considerably larger than the entire world population back then.

The majority of the world does not need a private car - in fact I think this will be something that we see change in places like the UK in our lifetime - and in many places, heated homes are not the norm even for the wealthy.
I am not in favour of "let's see how many people we can fit" as I already said. I think there's too many already for some of the reasons you point out - mining, production, etc but we could technically have more people and most of them live in reasonable comfort, at the expense of the rest of us not living so lavishly. I'm also not sure what 10bn people are supposed to do. Do we need to find jobs for them all or revolutionise the entire concept of work to live as automation gains ground?

Sounds rough to me. The Jeremy Clarkson 'baby monitor' argument.

[DoctorStrangelove]

It is self-limiting because, the way we're going, large areas of the planet won't be fit for human habitation.

And even if we can get on top of climate change, there's bound to be some other tulip come along caused by our rampant consumption.

Then there's always nuclear annihilation. It wouldn't be human to invent such a weapon, and for some despot not to use it.

Cheerful.

Ah yes. The Strangelove solution to Global Warming: Global Thermonuclear War with added nuclear winter.

Wear your mushrooms with pride.

Cobalt Thorium G: buy now whilst stocks last!

Then again:

[DealorNoDeal]

I've seen the overpopulation argument quite robustly debunked (in their view) by its critics. Extending modern farming techniques across the world and dramatically reducing meat consumption in favour of more efficient food sources quite trivially shows we can produce far more calories than we do now.

I don't think this seems like a great idea... to have as many people as possible isn't an ambition IMO. But it does seem we could reasonably support a lot more people if survival is all that matters.

Food is one thing but billions of poor people probably aspire to having more than just a full belly. In fact, the good life we've enjoyed for decades. Cars, heated homes, travel etc etc. Even if that can be achieved with zero carbon, think of all the raw materials that would be consumed.

Unfortunately, all the trappings of modern life are only sustainable when they're only available to a small minority.

[vetran]

why if I am a prosperous African would I want to subsist? I want a BMW and an iPhone.

[d000hg]

I've seen the overpopulation argument quite robustly debunked (in their view) by its critics. Extending modern farming techniques across the world and dramatically reducing meat consumption in favour of more efficient food sources quite trivially shows we can produce far more calories than we do now.

I don't think this seems like a great idea... to have as many people as possible isn't an ambition IMO. But it does seem we could reasonably support a lot more people if survival is all that matters.

[_V_]

It took 123 years to go from 1bln to 2bln and 11 years to go from 7bln to 8bln humans. The next 1bln will come mostly from just 7 countries in Africa and Asia.

[vetran]

One also has to consider that most of these people have a very minimal existence, many quite rightly will want to improve towards western standards with the financial & Eco costs that entails.

[DealorNoDeal]

It is self-limiting because, the way we're going, large areas of the planet won't be fit for human habitation.

And even if we can get on top of climate change, there's bound to be some other tulip come along caused by our rampant consumption.

Then there's always nuclear annihilation. It wouldn't be human to invent such a weapon, and for some despot not to use it.

Cheerful.

[Protagoras]

It's rather depressing to note that many countries with large populations and among the most vulnerable to climate change, which of course is not generally of their own making.

I did hear a suggestion that the biggest contribution one can make to the future of the world is to have no offspring

[NotAllThere]

Peak population.

The latest projections by the United Nations suggest that the world's population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion in 2050. It is projected to reach a peak of around 10.4 billion people during the 2080s and to remain at that level until 2100

And yes, it's sustainable if people would stop invading other countries. Or fighting within their own. And stupid environmentalists would stop protesting about GMO like Golden Rice.

Oh, and if you think there's too many humans, please report to your nearest processing centre. The environment thanks you for your sacrifice.

[SueEllen]

Don't worry India, who will have the biggest population at some point next year is already on it,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...pulous-country

[Protagoras]

Population is being reported as nearing 8bn.

Is this already past the sustainable level?

Maybe counties should have a target population growth level, under international agreements.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/